AGENDA 11:30 11:40 Grab Lunch 11:40 11:50 Welcome and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

“Strategies for Allocating Merit-

Based Salary Increases for Faculty”

UW ADVANCE Fall Quarterly Leadership Workshop

December 9, 2013

AGENDA

11:30 – 11:40 Grab Lunch 11:40 – 11:50 Welcome and Introductions 11:50 – 12:50 Panelists and Q&A 12:50 – 1:30 Small Group Discussions 1:30 – 1:50 Report Out

GRAB LUNCH

PRESENTATIONS LARGE GROUP Q&A

JANELLE TAYLOR CHAIR, ANTHROPOLOGY

Anthropology Department Process, 2013: Early March: Initial discussion of salary approach Mid-March: web-q survey soliciting faculty views on how merit raises should be allocated Early April: Survey results presented, policy proposed, discussed & approved by a faculty vote April: Faculty perform merit reviews (materials posted on secure website, committees of 3+ faculty senior in rank assigned to review each file, assessments submitted via web-q survey) May: Merit assessment results presented and discussed at closed faculty meetings

Faculty survey results:

• About 50% want all $$ to address compression
• About 25% want some $$ toward merit
• About 25% responded “I want the chair to decide, and I trust

her to allocate it in a manner that is fair”

Policy approved by faculty:

• 1. The faculty authorize the Chair to exercise her judgment in

deciding how best to allocate the 25% of "additional merit"

• raise. She may simply allocate it across-the-board with the

rest of the "additional merit" or she may use this (relatively small amount of) money to address extreme compression and/or exceptional merit.

• 2. If the anthropology department receives a unit adjustment

this year, 70% will be put toward addressing compression issues, and 30% toward merit.

Take Home Points:

The best way to convince faculty that you’re transparent and fair, is to actually be transparent and fair Faculty generally do not see the “big picture” of salary distribution, need the information presented to them Fairness is at stake in both merit and compression raises Create a structured way for faculty to provide input Share that input, and propose a policy that reflects it Process can reveal consensus and build trust Time is your friend: no sudden movements!

PAUL HOPKINS CHAIR, CHEMISTRY

Faculty Merit Salary Allocations

Paul B. Hopkins December 2013

Fundamentals

Purpose: Recruit, Retain (Reward?) Benchmark: Off Campus Peer Average Salaries, by Discipline, Rank Rules of Thumb: Sources: Merit/Additional Merit (3-4%/year) Promotions Unit Adjustment Retention Academic Inflation 4%/year (!) Career Advancement 1.5-2%/year Total Raise for Average Salary at all Career Stages 5.5-6%/year

Merit Salary Cycle Steps

1.

Collect Performance Data

2.

Analyze Performance Data

3.

Determine Raise Amount

Performance Data

Two-page CV (Last 5 years) Courses Taught Department & University Service Research Group (Number, Type of Students, Degrees…) Invited Lectures Publications Grant Activity Honors & Awards Additional Comments

Analysis

All CVs distributed to all faculty members, Faculty score colleagues on 1-5 scale, required average 3.0

Allocation

Common rational approaches:

• COLA (% or $)
• Merit Only (High merit = High raise etc.)
• Merit-Equity Correction (Raises allocated to

individuals in proportion to the size of the gap between their current salary and a calculated target salary reflecting performance and career stage.)

How to Calculate Target Salary

Figure 2. The two theoretically extreme distributions and the national percentile norms published by the Engineers Joint Council in their final report of the 1956-68 series on “Salaries and Income of Engineering Teachers.” No comparable reports have since been published by EJC/AAES. Koehler, W.F. Engineering Education 1985, pp 225-230.

Converting Target Salary to Allocation

Figure 3. A composite of the plotted points in figure 1 and the national percentile norms of figure 2 transformed to the coordinates of steps in the local pay schedule and years of experience to avoid inflation adjustments. The vertical components

• f

the arrows represent examples of objective determinations of equitable merit-pay increments corresponding to local performance evaluations E, O, P, S, and M, irrespective

• f their subjectivity.

Allocation (cont’d)

Chair tallies ballots to yield merit ranking on 1-5 scale for each faculty member. Chair uses merit ranking and career stage (years from Ph.D.) to calculate target salary. Chair drafts allocation proposal for critical review by appointed departmental council. Final allocations awarded.

SMALL GROUP ACTIVITY

Small Group Activity

• 1. What did you do for this last round of raises?
• 2. a. What might you change in the process

given today’s conversation?

• 2. b. How will you get faculty members on board

with your changes?

SMALL GROUP REPORT OUT